Churches and public policy discourses in South Africa
Nico Koopman (nkoopman@sun.ac.za)
Beyers Naude Centre for Public Theology (www.sun.ac.za/theology)
Stellenbosch University
1.Introduction
I remember the words of a South African scholar during a question and answer session at
a conference shortly after the inauguration of inclusive democracy in South Africa in
1994: “Secularism follows like a bloodhound in the threads of democracy”. He wanted to
make the point that the democratization process in South Africa would inevitably be
accompanied by a process of secularization. Our scholar used the concept secularism in
two ways. It firstly referred to the fact that an increasing number of people would alienate
them from religious faith and adhere to a humanist, atheist or agnostic life view.
Secularism secondly meant that people might still adhere to religious faith, but that
religious faith would increasingly be marginalized and limited to the so-called private
dimensions of life.
More than ten years later there is ample evidence that both forms of secularism did not
materialize in South Africa. On the contrary, religion is growing in South Africa.
Christianity has grown, especially amongst Charismatic and Pentecostal groups.
Christianity currently constitutes eighty percent of the population. The growth of
Christianity in South Africa coincides with its growth on the rest of the continent. Africa
is the continent on which Christianity experiences its most rapid growth. People in South
Africa and the rest of the continent is even more religious than a decade ago.
After more than a decade of inclusive democracy, religion is also not relegated to the
private spheres of life. In all public spheres there is a high level of hospitality to religion.
Religion is welcomed in political life, economic life, ecological matters, civil society, as
well as in processes of public opinion formation and public policy formulation.
Political leaders plead for the involvement of religion in public life; president Thabo
Mbeki regularly meets with religious leaders to discuss public matters; chaplains are
increasingly appointed in statutory bodies like the police, army and jails; various
partnerships exist between governmental bodies and religious organizations to address
plights like drug and alcohol abuse, care of the aged, care of aids patients, care of aids
orphans, health care in general, various types of educational initiatives, and diaconal
services; the prominent role of religious leaders and religion in the work of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission is a good example of the hospitality to religion in South
African political life.
Religious inputs are increasingly pleaded for in the formation of public morality, public
opinion and eventually public policy in different spheres of society, especially in civil
society, political life and the world of business. Some citizens of the business world
reflect, in collaboration with religious institutions, on their policies and practices
2
regarding matters like fair labour practices, corporate social responsibility and land
reform. Newspapers, television and radio stations do not only offer explicitly religious
programmes, but also invite religious perspectives when various public matters are
discussed. In academic discussions and theory building initiatives at academic institutions
religious and theological inputs are welcomed to a high extent.
So, fourteen years after the arrival of democracy, religion still enjoys a welcome
reception in South African public life. Although one must acknowledge the smaller
number of voices that would like to marginalize religion, religion on average still
receives a relatively warm welcome in public life.
The challenge is, however, how religion, specifically the Christian religion, responds to
this hospitality. And the question to ask is what type of role religion is to play in public
life. In different parts of the world, especially in South Africa, religion fulfilled an
ambiguous role. The Christian religion on the one hand supported apartheid, and on the
other hand helped to overcome it. Religion, therefore, does not automatically imply good
news for public life.
The danger also does exist that the different spheres of society does not want healthy
religion. Religion runs the risk of being misused to justify an ethos of materialism,
consumerism and morally implausible policies and practices. The threat of so-called
Constantinianism to South African churches is indeed real.
Another factor that does inhibit the active involvement of churches in public life with
regard to matters like public opinion-formation and public policy processes is the fact
that public life has become much more complex. During the struggle against apartheid
challenges were more clearly define, namely break down apartheid and develop a vision
of a new, alternative society. The building of a new society and the embodiment of the
original vision of a new South Africa seems to be a very complex matter.
For religion to fulfill a constructive role in society, thorough theological labour is crucial.
Hence the growth of the notion of public theology in South Africa. Without thorough
scientific reflection firstly upon the contents of Christian faith as Trinitarian faith,
secondly upon the rationality of this faith, and thirdly on the impact and implications of
this faith, religion in South Africa and elsewhere, might struggle to be good news to
society. Public theological discourse addresses the three sets of questions regarding firstly
the inherent public nature, scope and telos of Christian faith, and secondly the public
rationality, intelligibility, inner coherency, consistency, logic and reasonability of
Christian faith, and thirdly the impact upon, and significance, meaning and implications
of Christian faith for public life.
A fresh discovery of the inherent public nature of faith can encourage and prompt
churches to faithful living in public life. A renewed awareness of the public rationality of
faith can prevent us from self-secularisation which is the result of the conviction that our
message has rational meaning only within the community of faith. On the other hand this
3
rediscovery of the rationality of Christian faith can help South African churches, and
churches elsewhere, to guard against going public in anti-intellectual ways.
In line with the three central dimensions and arguments of public theology, public
theology can be described as ecclesial, academic and social theology. As ecclesial
theology public theology reflects upon the practices of churches. It is also informed by
these practices. The classic formulation of Prosper of Aquitaine that the lex orandi, lex
credendi and lex vivendi, i.e. the rule of worship, the rule of faith and the rule of life,
impact upon each other, is determinative for public theology. Public theology reflects
upon and guides, is informed and formed, strengthened and enriched by participation in
the worship, doctrine and life of the church. Public theology is academic theology. Its
scientific task of reflection and description, interpretation and sense-making, analysis and
synthesis cannot be done appropriately without ongoing collaboration with other
scientific disciplines. Public theology is also social theology. It reflects upon and guides,
is informed and formed, strengthened and enriched, by participation in and collaboration
with the practices of various spheres of contemporary societies.
From a Christological perspective the public role of churches, as those called and elected,
justified and sanctified by the triune God to participate in his mission in the world (the
Missio Dei), can be described in terms of the threefold office of Christ. Churches witness
to and serve Jesus Christ, the Prophet, Priest and Royal-servant in public life. The focus
in this presentation is upon the prophetic role of churches – more specifically on policymaking as one crucial dimension or mode of the prophetic calling of churches.
2. Prophetic speaking as policy-making
On the basis of a re-valuation, extension and fresh application of the varieties of moral
discourse identified by American theologian, James Gustafson1, the prophetic task of the
church is described as one with five roles. Besides the traditional prophetic role of firstly
the envisioning of a new society and secondly the criticism of the imperfect status quo,
prophetic speaking is extended to (thirdly) include the role of story-telling, i.e. the telling
of stories of suffering and despair, as well as victory and hope of people. Prophetic
speaking fourthly entails participating in technical philosophical discourses in which
concepts are thoroughly defined, illuminating distinctions and nuances are offered, and
well-argued decisions are made. Lastly, participation in policy discourses is described as
a crucial form of prophetic speaking. The rest of this presentation focuses upon prophetic
speaking as policy-making.2
1
J Gustafson, Varieties of moral discourse: Prophetic, narrative, ethical, and policy (Stob lectures of
Calvin College and Seminary, Grand Rapids, 1988). For an article in which Gustafson also discusses these
discourses, see ‘An Analysis of Church and Society Social Ethical Writings’ (1988a), in Ecumenical
Review 40 267 -278. For an article in which Gustafson applies these discourses to medical questions,
see ’Moral Discourse about Medicine: A Variety of Forms’ (1990) in Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
15:2, 125 -142. For an application of Gustafson’s theories to the question of justice, see BV Brady, The
moral bond of community. Justice and discourse in Christian morality (Washington: Georgetown
University Press, 1998).
2
With an appeal to the work of especially Jürgen Habermas, Gary Simpson recently pleaded for a more
comprehensive understanding of prophetic discourse. He also asks that technical discourses be viewed as
4
To impact on public life and to affect the course of events churches need to participate in
policy discourse.3 Policy discourse distinguishes itself from the other discourses in two
ways, according to Gustafson. This discourse is conducted by people who have the
responsibility to make choices and to carry out the actions that are required by those
choices. Visionaries, critics, storytellers, technical analysts can all function with the
external perspective of an observer, but policymakers function with the internal
perspective of persons and agents who are responsible to make choices in quite complex
and specific circumstances that constrain their possible actions.4
Gustafson refers to a second distinguishing characteristic of policy discourse. Policy is to
be developed in particular conditions that both limit and enable the possibilities of action.
The first question of the policymaker is likely to be “What is going on?” and not
“What ought we to do?” Or, at least, both of these questions have to be kept in
mind in a tandem and finally integrated way. The policymaker has to know what
is possible, as well as what is the right thing to do, or what the most desirable
outcomes are. What is desirable is always related to what is possible; it is always
under the constraints of the possible. And a critical factor of judgment is precisely
what is possible.5
The other discourses, especially the technical-ethical discourse, should give direction to
policy, but more is required for final decisions and policies: estimates and assessments of
what is possible with the help of sociological, economic and other concepts; information
on how to move the institution with efficiency from where they currently are to where
they could be and ought to be within a specific time frame. For the policymaker the
ethical is not the only consideration, but it is just a dimension of the economic, social,
personal and historical.6
Within the framework of limited space, time, information and possibilities, policymakers
are challenged to make compromises and even decisions that might seem morally wrong
or morally inadequate to especially the storytellers, critics and visionaries.7 The enabling
dimension of policy discourse resides in the fact that policymakers do have sufficient
power to implement decisions and policies.8
part of prophetic speaking. See G Simpson, Critical social theory. Prophetic reason, civil society, and
Christian imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002). Duncan Forrester also makes a strong case for
the participation of churches in public policymaking processes, both on the level of theoretical discussions
of various issues and on the level of policymaking itself. See D Forrester, Christian justice and public
policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p.36. For a more detailed discussion of the various
modes of a more comprehensive prophetic ecclesiology, see my recent still unpublished paper, titled Public
theology as prophetic theology. More than utopia and criticism?
3
J Gustafson, Varieties of moral discourse, p.52.
4
J Gustafson, Varieties of moral discourse, p.43, 46.
5
J Gustafson, Varieties of moral discourse, p.47.
6
J Gustafson, Varieties of moral discourse, p.49 - 51.
7
J Gustafson, Varieties of moral discourse, p.51.
8
J Gustafson, Varieties of moral discourse, p.51.
5
Various congregations in South Africa had started to establish discussion forums where
public policy issues are being dealt with. Churches, however, need also to participate
more directly and institutionally in public policy processes. The South African Council of
Churches (SACC), the South African Catholic Bishops Conference, The Dutch Reformed
Church as well as the Baptist and Quaker Churches had established public policy liaison
offices at national parliament during the past decade. These churches collaborate on
issues of public policy. They make presentations to the portfolio committees of national
parliament, and they guide, inform, and consult with churches (from ecumenical to
congregational levels) on specific policy issues. Of importance is also the annual
compilation of a so-called People’s Budget by the Ecumenical Service for Social and
Economic Transformation (ESSET) of the SACC, in collaboration with trade-unions and
other role players. This process offers an assessment and critique of the official budget of
the state, and spells out alternative avenues to be explored for the sake of the most
vulnerable in society.
3. Churches and public policy discourses – some considerations
The views of Gustafson on policy discourse suggest some questions to be paid more
attention to: (1) What is the exact role of religion in public policy discourse, i.e. does
religion only provide a motivation, goal and meaning giving framework for debates on
policy, or does religion make a unique and indispensable input regarding the contents of
the debate? And what type of language do we use in public policy discourses, i.e.
unapologetic religious language, or so-called secular (religious-free) language? (2) If
religion makes a contribution on the material, substantial level, what should the format of
that contents be, i.e. broad visions, values and principles, or blueprints for decisions and
policies? (3) How do churches deal with the risk of making morally implausible
compromises within the situation of political limitations? (4) What is the role of
churches regarding the implementation of policies?
a. Motivation and content?
Some authors argue that the role of religion in public policy discourses should be limited
to that of providing a world view, a view of life, an ultimate and comprehensive
perspective, a meaning-giving framework, which gives orientation to all aspects of life,
including the choices and policies of people. This framework embodies the motivation,
attitude, and the telos and purpose of our choices and decisions. In terms of Gustafson’s
discourses we could argue that this position actually limits the prophetic task to that of
envisioning, criticism and storytelling. Christian faith and other religious faiths,
according to this position, do not have something to offer to technical discourses and
policy discourses in terms of subject matter and content.
Dutch theologian, Harry Kuitert, is a strong representative of this position. The role of
religion in pluralistic public discourses should be limited to that of providing meaninggiving frameworks. And when it becomes unavoidable for Christians to mention this
6
framework in the discourse explicitly, it should be done in language that is rationally
accessible to those outside the Christian community. Religion has nothing to offer to the
contents of the pluralistic public, discourse which cannot be acquired by secular, rational
means. He separates religion and morality and pleads for the autonomy, secularity and
tradition-independence of morality. Religion can only act as protector and feeder of
morality, but not as mother or source of morality. With an appeal to and an amendment of
a distinction of Dutch ethicist, Bert Musschenga, Kuitert pleads that public discourses
focus only on thin (Dutch: smal) moralities – i.e. on autonomous, secular arguments,
without a focus on unique motivations and aims. In private life religious people can focus
on last-mentioned aspects, which constitutes a thick (Dutch: brede) morality. 9
Other theologians, like Stanley Hauerwas, argue that Christian faith indeed makes unique
contributions to the contents of pluralistic public policy discourses. Dutch theologian,
Jochem Douma, acknowledges that biblical authors borrowed moral directives from
sources outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition, but that they re-interpreted these sources
within the framework of their faith. Paul borrows from philosophical sources, e.g. in the
so-called house-tables of Ephesians, but he re-interprets these moral convictions in the
light of Christological faith. He, for instance, then does not only teach the equality of
males and females, but also their mutual submission to each other. South African
theologian, Etienne de Villiers, even argues that Christians make a contribution to
pluralistic discourses by prioritizing the various challenges in a given situation in a
unique way. This process of prioritization might entail that some challenges receive more
attention in a context of a manifold of challenges.10
Theologians who reckon that Christian contents are to be tabled in pluralistic public
discourses, argue that these Christian convictions are to be rationally accessible to those
inside and outside the Christian tradition. According to David Tracy11 the contributions
of the Christian faith is to be viewed as reasonable by people from diverse religious and
secular traditions. Appeals are to be made to universal categories such as experience,
intelligence, rationality and responsibility. Claims are to be stated with appropriate
warrants, backings and rebuttal procedures. Religious partners in the pluralistic discourse
should abstract themselves from their faith commitments for the sake of critical analysis
of their religious convictions, both by outsiders and members of their tradition. This
abstraction does not imply disinvolvement and a quest for objectivity in positivistic
fashion.
For as detailed discussion of Kuitert’s views see N Koopman ‘The role of tradition in moral decisionmaking and moral consensus’, in NGTT December, 45, 2004, p. 838-848. For a very helpful more recent
discussion, in the field of political science, of the notion of thickness and thinness in pluralistic public
discourses, see B Gregg, Thick moralities, thin politics. Social integration across communities of belief
(Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2003).
10
For an extensive discussion of these views see N Koopman, ‘The role of tradition’, p. 838-848.
11
D Tracy, The analogical imagination. Christian theology and the culture of pluralism (London: SCM
Press, 1981), p.56 – 59.
9
7
Jeffrey Stout 12 makes a valuable contribution regarding the type of language that
religious people should employ in pluralistic public discourses. As I understand him he
argues that a readymade, neutral universal language, an Esperanto, does not exist.
Religious (and also secular) people should develop a so-called bricolage, i.e. they should
construct positions by borrowing from the variety of moral fragments that exist in
modern-postmodern societies. Besides borrowing, the bricoleurs jostle, discuss, negotiate,
and seek consensus and commonalities. They should also use a so-called pidginlanguage, i.e. a language like human rights language that is accessible to a variety of
religious and secular traditions. The use of this language by such a variety of people
enriches and thickens this language, so that it eventually develops into a creole language.
This creole language remains accessible to people from various traditions, but it is thicker
and more tradition-dependent than the pidgin.
Stout’s theoretical reflections fit the post-apartheid context in South Africa like a glove.
We act as bricoleurs who developed a common human rights language by borrowing
from various religious and secular traditions. The pidgin language, i.e. the human rights
language which served as the minimum consensus of the plurality of South Africans over
the last twelve years developed into a creole language. That means the South African
public human rights discourse is enriched by various traditions. Christianity helped to
make notions like reconciliation and restorative justice part of the new public language,
or creole. And the indigenous African cultures helped to make ubuntu, the notion that one
person is a person through other persons, the notion therefore of communality and
solidarity, part of the common creole language.
The so-called Christian realism of Reinhold Niebuhr provides a good example of an
approach to public life and public policy which appreciates the contribution of Christian
faith convictions on the level of both motivation and meaning-giving, on the one hand,
and on the level of the material contents of the discourses, on the other hand. Paul
Lehmann13 and more recently Michael Welker also plead for the contribution of theology
to public life on both the level of thinner and thicker moralities. He states:
Without surrendering its high esteem for personal certainty of faith, theology must
learn to discover, and teach others to discover, faith’s power to provide material
orientation. This exemplary orientation to theology’s subject matter must prove
itself by turning to the decisive testimonies of the tradition, and by a sensitive
12
J Stout, Ethics after Babel. With a new postscript by the author (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 1988/2001 repr.), p.74 – 81.
13
Lehmann shows what the contribution of the Christian faith to public discourse might be on the level of
content and substance. His description of the telos of Christ’s work of salvation, namely that of
humanization and restoration of dignity, enjoyed attention in the years of the struggle against apartheid,
amongst others in the works of public theologians like Allan Boesak. In contemporary South Africa the
notion of humanization enjoys renewed interest. The limits of this category in the context of environmental
breakdown is, however, acknowledged. The idea of humanization is therefore used in conjunction with the
theme of the restoration of dignity of all of creation, i.e. of humans and the environment. See P Lehmann,
Ethics in a Christian context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1963/repr. 2006). The Beyers
Naudé Centre for Public Theology at Stellenbosch University over the last six years conducted two
international research projects with the themes: the humanization of globalization, and dignity at the edges
of life.
8
engagement with the burning questions that our contemporary cultures and
societies pose. 14
Niebuhr’s Christian realism was developed in the 1930’s context of failing peace plans,
economic problems and racial unrest. Christian realism contradicted the optimism about
progress in American culture, and the idealism of American religion that societal
problems can be solved merely through personal conversion and salvation. The idea of
Christian realism was further developed during the time of the theological defense of
democracy during the Second World War, and Christian realism provided moral guidance
for policymaking processes during the period after the Second World War, which dealt,
amongst others, with the Cold War and the nuclear race.15
Niebuhr’s Christian realism entailed realism about human beings. In his seminal work
about anthropology he describes human beings as sinful people. We are, on the one hand,
M Welker, ‘Is theology in public discourse possible outside communities of faith?’, in LE Lugo (ed.),
Religion, pluralism and public life. Abraham Kuyper’s legacy for the twenty-first century (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000), p.122.Welker pleads for a renewed awareness of the pluralism of the theological
enterprize. Theology has various forms and are practiced by various role players in various interrelated
publics, in fixed and relatively fluid forms, in systemic and individual forms, in forms that privileges
individual experiences, or shared convictions and established traditions (116). Christian faith already has a
presence in public life outside the church where it forms public mentality and thinking. It is present in the
form of classic theism (the idea of a transcendent God who is in control of all of life), religious holism (the
phenomenon that whenever notions like wholeness and completeness are discussed in the public sphere in
pluralistic and secular societies, religion is appealed to), religiously imbued moralism (the custom that
religion is appealed to whenever moral reconstruction is on the public agenda), religious dialogism or
personalism (the relationship of distance and dialectic between humans and the other, and the Other),
existentialism (the dangerous reduction of faith to inner feelings and experiences of the divine within your
innermost being) (117 – 118). He also asks that the complex inter-related and interdependent pluralistic
spheres and processes in public life not be confused with mere plurality and diversity. He, therefore, pleads
for a revisioning and extension of Tracy’s famous three publics of theology, namely the publics of academy,
church and society. There are more publics than Tracy suggests, and these publics are more inter-related
and interdependent than Tracy explains. He pleads for a public theology that engages with all public
spheres, also with the sphere of public policy (119 – 120). Utterances can only be viewed as theology if the
theologian shows a minimal level of conviction, faith and existential involvement with the material he or
she deals with. Utterances are only theological if it is expressed in words and a language that is logic,
coherent, communicable, comprehensible and capable of material development, i.e. development with
respect to their object and content. Theology connects and interrelates consistency of conviction and
consistency of subjectmatter (112 – 113). Welker identifies three forms of theology. Some are fragmentary
theological utterances and others are elaborated and developed, and a third group move back and forward
between these two poles in a multiplicity of intellectual and epistemic processes (114 – 115). Public
theology is engaged in the analysis of the rich Christian tradition, specifically of Scripture, as well as in the
analysis of cultural and political processes. It cultivates a discursive theological understanding that nurtures
members of faith communities to maturity and responsibility (121 – 122). Public theology is challenged to
transcend the dangers that are created by the five-fold presence of religion in public life, namely
nonhierarchical patterns of thought, dualistic images of the world, an ethos that does not reach further than
the confines of “I and Thou”, vague moralists and a vague rhetoric of pluralism. This will ensure that
theology does not speak past contemporary culture and a fragmented public religious mentality and
common sense (122). His emphasis of a biblically based public theology shows that for Welker the
contribution of theology to public life, and specifically to public policy, is on both the levels of so-called
thinner and thicker moralities. Scripture, according to Welker illumines contemporary public discourses on
the material level as well.
15
See R Lovin, Reinhold Niebuhr (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), p.59.
14
9
created in God’s image and, on the other hand, we are also vulnerable, finite beings. This
awareness of finitude fills us with anxiety. As anxious, finite ones, we do not put our trust
in God. We rather use our freedom as image-bearers to oppose this finitude. Niebuhr
describes these attempts to overcome finitude and tragedy as a fourfold pride of power,
intellect, morality and religion. Niebuhr uses the thick Christian language of sin in public
policy discourses. He describes humans, citizens, in terms of the notion of sin. His
hamartiology enabled him to give a profound description of modern human beings. We
are proud. We seek our own survival. We live egoistically and self-centered. We deal
with our anxieties that are generated by the acknowledgement of our vulnerabilities, by
using power to protect us from our neighbours, by developing ideologies to justify this
power and thereby reassuring ourselves of our invulnerability. 16 This anthropology of
finitude, anxiety and pride, i.e. of sin, also explains the tragic antinomies of history, the
inner contradictions of human existence, and the ultimate mysteries of time and eternity.
And Niebuhr challenges theology to illuminate these realities in public life, which had
been obscured because of the absence of the Christian voice in public life. He challenges
Christians to bake a cake of which the contents are also Christian, and not only the
icing.17
The realism about the sinful nature of modern citizens and about the tragic, contingent
and ambiguous nature of human history, prompted Niebuhr to be realistic about the
capabilities and achievements of sinful human beings in public life. We are not the ones
who will, after our basic needs have been met, live with moderation, and we will not
intuitively and sacrificially seek the common good, as some social idealists suggest. 18 To
bring about significant political and economic change in service of the common good, at
least nonviolent forms of force, power and coercion needs to be used. This power is,
however, a necessary evil that needs to checked. It should be neutralized through
balances of power, mutual defenses against its inordinate expression and techniques that
ensure that it serves the common good.19
The realism about sin and evil also makes us sober about going public with the ideal of
love. The best that we can achieve in this life, and that also in approximate forms, is
justice. The liberal theology of his day, according to Niebuhr, is too optimistic about
materializing love in the world, and orthodox theology is too pessimistic about achieving
at least appropriate forms of justice in the world.20 It needs to be stressed that Niebuhr
16
R Niebuhr, The nature and destiny of man. Vol.1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1941/1996repr.). More than a decade later Niebuhr would write: “According to our faith we are always
involved in sin and in death because we try too desperately to live, to preserve our pride, to maintain our
prestige. Yet it is possible to live truly if we die to self, if the vain glory of man (sic.) is broken by divine
judgment that life may be truly reformed by divine grace.” See R Niebuhr Christian realism and political
problems (Eugene, Oregon:Wipf & Stock, 1953/199 repr.), p.111.
17
R Niebuhr, Christian realism, p.190 – 191.
18
R Niebuhr, The children of light and the children of darkness. A vindication of democracy and a critique
of its traditional defense (New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1944/1972repr.), p.7.
19
R Niebuhr, An interpretation of Christian ethics (New York: Meridian Books, 1935/1958 repr.), p.128,
148.
20
R Niebuhr, An interpretation, p.128, 131. Niebuhr argues that the undue pessimism of orthodox
Christians against the background of sin, evil and the consequent fear about the possible disintegration of
the world, leads to a complacent acceptance and frantic and pious commendation of unjust systems. The
10
does not imply that love has nothing to do with contemporary political and economic life.
Though he is realistic about the inability of humans to fulfill love, he, however, sees an
important role for love. It is firstly the source of the norms of justice, and it, secondly,
provides a transcendental, ultimate perspective by which the limitations of the norms of
justice are discovered.21
It is not only regarding the unmasking of our sinful, tragic and contingent nature that
Niebuhr plays an illuminating role in public life. His Christian realism is also a realism
regarding the hope for limited public achievements. Remorse, contrition and repentance
are not the only words regarding our sinful nature. There is also the language of
redemption. In fact, repentance is part of the broader experience of redemption. The
Gospel articulates the promise of new life for individuals and nations.22 He is realistic
about this new life, he adheres to a realistic hope, and he adheres to the reality of Jesus
Christ. This faith and hope suggest that there is meaning in life that transcends the
evidence of historical processes. Because of this hope upon Christ and his reign, we do
not respond with cynicism and pessimism, apathy and withdrawal to tragic, ambiguous
and ironic historical processes, but with criticism and responsibility.23
In the light of this realism about human finitude, and this realism about hope of
redemption, Christians participate in public policy discourses and are open to making
compromises. The broken, tragic nature of existence asks for unavoidable choices that are
less than the ideal, i.e. compromises that serve the cause of justice in democratic societies.
The realism about our sinfulness makes these compromises essential. In the world with
its ambiguous history where there is neither pure good nor pure evil, we have to make
compromises and choose between greater and lesser evils. 24 The realism about the
redemption in Christ makes compromises possible and indicates that they might be
servants of the common good.
Niebuhr is criticized that he allows for compromises at the expense of the poor and the
marginalized. Whilst referring to the works of various African-American, womanist and
feminist theologians, Robin Lovin25 cites various areas of criticism of Christian realism.
The focus is so much on what is realistically achievable that the most wronged people
can become despaired about the possibility of change. Changes to the status quo of
racism, classism and sexism are, unintentionally, portrayed as not possible, or at the best
as not to be achieved soon. The social, economic and political implications of various
very helpful categories in Niebuhr’s thinking, like his description of sin and power, need
to be spelled out more concretely. In section c of this essay we show ways in which these
criticisms can be overcome.
undue optimism of liberal Christians about what love might achieve in the world, leads to a sentimental
moralism that is blind for the mechanistic and amoral factors in social life, or for the mechanistic and
technical prerequisites of social justice. See R Niebuhr, An interpretation, p.129.
21
R Niebuhr, An interpretation, p.128.
22
R Niebuhr, Christian realism, p.111, 115.
23
R Niebuhr, The nature and destiny of man. Vol.1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1943/1996repr.), p.15.
24
R Niebuhr, Faith and politics, ed. R Stone (New York: George Braziller, 1968), p.56.
25
R Lovin, Reinhold Niebuhr, p.64 - 65.
11
Niebuhr’s image of the erecting of a building demonstrates clearly how Christian faith
makes contributions to public policy discourses, both on motivational (thinner) and
material (thicker) levels. The Christian conviction that life has meaning constitutes the
foundation of the house. The eschatological hope upon the complete perfect fulfillment of
a new life of justice and love constitutes the roof of the house. The walls, uprights and
diagonals which complete the building are the concrete moral decisions, policies and
actions which are the outcome of the process of applying ultimate religious insights to
specific situations.
Christian faith contributes to these more specific moral directives for concrete decisions
and policies. The next section of this presentation deals with this theme.
In South African public discourses hospitality is shown to both roles of various religions,
i.e. that of providing meaning, purpose, telos and motivation to specific policies, on the
one hand, and that of making unique material contributions to the policy discourse and
the eventual concrete policies, on the other hand. A good example is the memorandum
that the South African Council of Churches handed to the government and the trade
unions during a national strike of teachers, nurses and other state employees during 2007.
In addressing both the state as employer and the various trade unions the SACC explicitly
stated that the Christian faith values the practice of justice to employees, and the
comprehensive formation and education of children, and the special care of the most
vulnerable in society. It pleaded for a speedy resolution for the sake of employees being
wronged, and especially for the sake of the children and the sick. The SACC did not
claim that their contribution was unique, but they indeed drew from their tradition to
make a material contribution to the debate.
b. Broad principles and more specific directives?
The notion of middle axioms that were developed by J.H. Oldham and that was tabled at
the 1937 Life and Work conference in Oxford, might be very helpful for moving from the
level of broad theological and moral directives in the form of vision, critique, narratives
and ethical measures to the level of concrete public decisions and policies. In South
Africa Charles Villa-Vicencio pleads for attention to the notion of middle axioms in the
attempt to develop post-apartheid public theologies that help to translate the rich
Christian heritage into concrete proposals for public policy. 26 Oldham defines middle
axioms as follows:
… between purely general statements of the ethical demands of the gospel and the
decisions that have to be made in concrete situations there is need for what may
be described as middle axioms. It is these that give relevance and point to the
Christian ethic. They are attempts to define the directions in which, in a particular
state of society, Christian faith must express itself. They are not binding for all
26
C Villa-Vicencio, A Theology of Reconstruction: Nation building and Human Rights (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), p.9 – 10, 280 - 283.
12
time, but are provisional definitions of the type of behaviour of Christians in a
given period and given circumstances.27
Will Storrar, who appreciates Ronald Preston’s continued use of middle axioms, argues
that the notion of middle axioms might enhance the participation of Christians in public
policy discourses. Middle axioms constitutes the middle ground between general
statements and detailed policies, between
The shared beliefs and related ethical principles of Christianity, and the very
specific decisions and judgements that Christians as policy-makers, practitioners,
citizens and voters must be free to make on often complex economic, social and
political matters.28
Middle axioms are developed through the ecumenical and interdisciplinary study of
public issues. In these studies the contents that are dealt with are both the Christian and
ethical perspectives, on the one hand, and the relevant empirical evidence, on the other
hand. 29 The empirical evidence to formulate policies to address poverty, according to
Michael Taylor, is obtained from disciplines in economics, engineering, social science,
development, local knowledge, and I would add political science.30
Middle axioms can be fruitfully employed of it pays attention to the various points of
criticism raised against it.
It should not be viewed as abstract, deductive principles that function in isolation from
the thicker Christian vision and narratives, but, as Villa-Vicencio31 states, a conceptual
and contextual device “that integrates the contextual and transcendental demands of the
gospel”. Where the connectedness of middle axioms with the richer Christian tradition is
kept intact, the use of middle axioms addresses the danger that Duncan Forrester 32 warns
against, namely the reduction and elimination of Christian eschatology, utopianism, hope,
and the exclusive focus upon what is humanly spoken possible and realistic. Moreover,
the danger that Paul Lehmann warns again would also be addressed if middle axioms
remain grounded in rich Christian faith convictions, the danger namely that middle
axioms constitutes a gentle natural theology which functions with a broader base than
revelation, and which renders the distinctively Christian expendable.33
Quoted by W Storrar, ‘Scottish civil society and devolution: the new case for Ronald Preston’s defense
of middle axioms’, in E Graham and E Reed (eds.), The future of Christian social ethics. Essays on the
work of Ronald H. Preston 1913 – 2001 (New York/London: Continuum, 2004), p.38.
28
W Storrar, ‘Scottish civil society’, p.38.
29
W Storrar, ‘Scottish civil society’, p.39.
30
M Taylor, ‘Faith in the global economic system’, in E Graham and E Reed (eds.), The future of Christian
social ethics, p.210.
31
C Villa-Vicencio, A Theology of Reconstruction, p.283.
32
D Forrester, ‘The scope of Public Theology’, in E Graham and E Reed (eds.), The future of Christian
social ethics, p.13, 14.
33
N Duff, Humanization and the politics of God. The Koinonia Ethics of Paul Lehmann (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1992), p.166.
27
13
Middle axiom discourse should not only include policymakers, intellectuals and other
people with social power, but should include the local knowledge of marginalized
people,34 and the theological and hermeneutical insights of people who do not from part
of the academy, civil service, educated elite and politicians.35 Middle axiom discourse
that does not address the agenda of the most vulnerable in society would be discredited,
as had happened with this notion in the circles of the World Council of Churches since
the 1960’s and 1970’s. The, what Taylor calls radical participation, of excluded
communities should be materialized in middle axiom discourses. This plurality of
conversation partners implies that the methodology of middle axiom discourse, with its
emphasis on technical analysis, should be more flexible and more inclusive of the
grassroots expertise of people from different social strata, men and women, young and
old, different sectors of society.36 Taylor pleads for attention to the “big picture as seen
by governments and the snapshots taken by local groups and communities”.37 Attention
to Gustafson’s narrative discourse will ensure that these voices are present in the policy
discourse that middle axioms serve.
Middle axioms might overcome the threat of being too vague and general about policy
matters by overcoming the fear that theologians do not have adequate expertise regarding
complicated and sophisticated public issues, and the fear that inadequate consensus might
exist among Christians when we move from more general to more specific moral
directives, and the fear that the gospel might be over-identified with policy outcomes
which it always transcends.38 Middle axiom discourses therefore challenges churches to
develop minimal levels of sophistication about public issues, without pretending to be
experts in those fields; to seek adequate levels of consensus, toleration and even embrace
amongst conflicting and even incommensurable positions; to guard intentionally against
Constantinianism and the absolute domestication of the gospel.
c. Public policy and morally acceptable compromises?
Various remarks above regarding the threats to middle axiom discourse, makes it clear
that thorough attention needs to be paid to the most vulnerable people in society. Where
this classical Christian notion is cherished, both Christian realism and middle axiom
discourses, might proof to be very helpful to public theologies that seek ways of engaging
public policy processes in contemporary pluralistic societies.
John De Gruchy articulates this notion in a helpful way. De Gruchy39 explains that from
its inception Reformed Theology has had an inherently public and liberating essence. In
the 16th and 17th century context of social, political and economic conflict, violence and
oppression Reformed Theology focused on both the salvation of the individual and the
transformation of society. Second-generation reformer, Calvin, and his successors
See M Taylor, ‘Faith in the global economic system’, p.210.
See D Forrester, ‘The scope of Public Theology’, p. 12,13.
36
See M Taylor, M Taylor, ‘Faith in the global economic system’, p.204, 212 – 213.
37
See M Taylor, M Taylor, ‘Faith in the global economic system’, p.204
38
See M Taylor, M Taylor, ‘Faith in the global economic system’, p.211.
39
J De Gruchy, Liberating Reformed Theology. A South African contribution to an ecumenical debate
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p.2.
34
35
14
developed a Public Theology that was a potent force within the political struggle and
ferment of the Europe of its day. Many of the adherents to the Reformed tradition
experienced prosecution and oppression themselves, amongst others the French
Huguenots. Public involvement and identification with the poor and oppressed is
therefore central to Reformed Theology since its inception.
De Gruchy indicates how Liberation Theology helps contemporary Reformed theologians
to re-discover the inherent liberating dimension of central notions in their tradition, e.g.
grace, justification, sanctification, ecclesiology the law and the covenant. Of importance
is De Gruchy’s40 explanation that the Reformed understanding of God’s election is in line
with the cherished notion in Liberation Theology of God’s preferential option for the
poor. He argues that God’s election is portrayed in both the Old and New Testament as
an election of not only individuals, but of groups, specifically of oppressed groups like
slaves in Egypt. His election vindicated oppressed people as the Magnificat of Mary
articulates clearly. God’s election and providence is therefore always redemptive and
liberating. De Gruchy41 explains, with an appeal to Gustavo Gutierrez, that the notion of
the preferential option for the poor should not be interpreted in an exclusive manner, as if
God chooses against some. The identification of God with the poor and the wronged
should not be interpreted as an exclusive, but as a primary identification. So, God loves
all the world, rich and poor. But in a situation of immense poverty, injustice and
dehumanization He identifies with and is present in a primary and special way with the
poor, wronged and dehumanized. This option for the poor indicates how God works in
the world, namely from the particular to the universal. The option for the poor therefore
also does not imply that even the poor are ends in themselves. In the redemption and
liberation of the poor and wronged God is working towards the liberation of all, also of
oppressors.
Brady’s elaboration on and application of the work of Gustafson is helpful at this point.
He argues that in policymaking the variety of vulnerable people need to be given priority,
amongst others children, women, oppressed racial groups, poor people and exploited
workers. This notion of the priority of the most vulnerable will help that unavoidable
compromises will not impact negatively on them. The notion of the option of the most
vulnerable serves as benchmark with regard to policymaking and especially the adoption
of compromises.42
Niebuhr’s Christian realism, as well as the notion of middle axioms can only be of use if
they heed this preferential option of the poor and marginalized. Where this fundamental
notion in the Christian tradition receives attention, not only the possibility of real change
and liberation, but also the urgency of such change, become realities. Christian realism
can be helpful for public policy discourses when it takes the reality of sin and suffering,
of especially the most vulnerable, very seriously. This is not too difficult a task for a
notion which has the reality of suffering and tragedy in the core of its thought. And
Christian realism will be helpful if its realism about suffering and tragedy is matched
De Gruchy, Liberating, p.131 – 132.
De Gruchy, Liberating, p.133 – 134.
42
BV Brady, The moral bond of community, p.148 – 153.
40
41
15
with a realism of the hope in the resurrection and victory of the crucified Lord. These
elements of hope and victory do exist in the thinking of Niebuhr. For a constructive use
of Christian realism, these however need to be made more explicit than Niebuhr himself
seemed to have done.
4. After policymaking?
The prophetic involvement of churches in policy discourse is not limited to that of policymaking. Churches have to monitor the implementation of policies, and to ensure that
delivery to the most vulnerable does take place. South Africa is portrayed as a society
that made a record number of policies after the fall of apartheid and the adoption of a
Constitution of inclusive democracy. Though commendable policies are being formulated,
the implementation of these policies need serious attention.
In this regard churches are to make sure that they are not lapdogs, but watchdogs as well
as team-dogs. The lapdog role entails that churches are co-opted by the government and
that they pay unacceptable loyalty to the government and other institutions of power, like
big business. Churches should heed the fact that their loyalty is reserved for the triune
God, and for those with whom this God identifies in a special way.
Based on this twofold loyalty to God and the most vulnerable ones, churches offer
courageous criticism in public life. This criticism is credible because it drinks from and
informs prophetic discourses of envisioning, storytelling, technical analysis and policymaking. This critical role regarding the monitoring of policy-implementation entails
offering praise where implementation and delivery is satisfactory, and critique where this
is not the case.43
As team-dog churches form partnerships with government and other social institutions in
the spheres of political life, business, civil society, as well as the sphere of public
opinion-formation to ensure the thorough implementation of policies.
Churches lastly collaborate with various appropriate institutions in society to amend and
improve policies.
5. Conclusion
Religion, also the Christian religion, can be good news to societies if we develop
constructive theologies. One of the acid tests for faithful public theology in the 21 st
century is to serve Christian communities with theological guidelines for participating in
all walks of public life, specifically also in public policy-making processes. Faithful
public theologies would seek and offer theological directives for participating in various
modes in public life: priestly and royal-servant, as well as prophetic in a new and more
comprehensive way, which include the crucial mode of policy-making..
43
See R Niebuhr, An interpretation of Christian ethics, p.149.